Major WTF moment, considering the modern Republican sales pitch about war and the military. One think the party that’s pro-bombing, would actually put their ass on the line, and serve in it. Even more pathetic: a mere 3% at most, of the entire legislative branch, has actually done their part. :roll:
Greedy cowardly parasites. That’s mostly what Congress consists of.
Was looking up all the sex related articles on Wikipedia, cause I was bored.
I was looking around that site and if you check under military service, not just combat service, the proportions are up to 25% of the Senate and 20% of the House, which have got to be much higher proportions than in the population at large. Republicans also have slight edge (.6%, or about 3 people) over Democrats in those numbers.
It seems strange that the only three wars they single out are WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Most WWII and Korea vets would be retired or dead by now, which would drive down the numbers for service as a whole. Also, I know that a number of Iraq/Afghanistan vets have been elected in the last couple years, so it would be nice if they added a category for them as well.
Somewhere between 8% to 10% of the current population has served in the military, according to the US Census.
IMHO, when your country is at war, it’s those who’ve served in a combat tour that demonstrate “putting your ass on the line.” There’s a rotation system, so that no one able and fit is left out of the fun: technically, the same units shouldn’t be going to the same theater over and over again… although that obviously not always the case. There’s a lot of paper trail, that reveal the sons of politicians and the wealthy have somehow remained station in training units and reserve stations for the entire duration of a conflict… never setting a single foot on a battlefield or even near a combat zone. Rather fishy… but it only becomes a point of interest during election season, and suddenly is forgotten without further investigation (see the second Bush as the most recent media whorefest for ratings).
You don’t have to be a frontline soldier getting shot… but you should at least have been in the combat theater, in a war lasting longer than 6 to 8 years (since duty rotations occur in 2 thru 4 year rotations). Ordinarily, you’re supposed to change stations more often if you’re an officer.
That’s likely for political reasons. Korea and Vietnam era, are about when the Republicans and Democrats became the political inclination they are today. Republicans were once liberals, and Democrats were once conservatives: the flip predominantly happened during the Civil Rights and Women Suffrage era. Strom Thurmond for example (though while he was a hypocritical racist bastard, he did fight in WW2… not trying to excuse him… but at least he did something decent for a time). Hence Black Americans statistically voting Democrat, despite that Democrats used to be the racist segregationist party (i.e. the Dixiecrats) – or Lincoln ideologically being what we’d term as a liberal in modern politics, but was a Republican.
This site kinda kept track of it… but the guy is an ultra liberal, so it’s got a huge slant, and only focuses on the Bush years:
I was rather surprised to learn, while Clinton dodged the draft at first, he eventually registered. Of course he got a number so high, and the war had gone on for so long, he was safe from actually going… but seeing how some critics avoided registration all together… well… that was rather sobering. Rush Limbaugh’s sorry ass excuse (literally) made me lmao, considering how much he rode on Clinton about being a draft dodger.
My only argument with this is that after serving 6 years myself, I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan. My first and last year’s were both in Korea and the rest were in the states. My case was unique of course because I got sent to recruiting for two years in the middle which pretty much negated any chance of getting deployed. Of course I personally think that anyone going for the House or Senate should have at least served in one of the branches, excluding the Coast Guard. I still can’t fathom how it’s okay to have a President act as the Commander in Chief when he/she has NO experience in a military organization. Even if they only made it to E-3 it’s still better than having no actual knowledge of what’s going on.
On a side note: Every combat vet I met in recruiting said they would MUCH rather be in a combat zone than in recruiting. Gives you an idea of how awesome THAT job was :x .
I’ve actually gained some respect for the Coast Guard. Ship for ship in peacetime, they see more combat action than the Navy, given that the Coast Guard is responsible for drug control. Also the Coast Guard is responsible for water structure operations. For example when the Navy captured Iraqi oil rigs, it was the Coast Guard that had to garrison and hold them. Something like 600 of them were in the first Iraq War. Plus the Coast Guard have the insane job of going INTO a hurricane to save idiots who didn’t leave. The Navy generally AVOIDS storms like that (as any sane person would).
On a similar note, I find that people who’ve served honorably as police or firemen, are equal to the military. At least the armed forces have overwhelming firepower and the general respect (or fear) from the population: cops have to deal with being outgunned by criminals and being hated by ordinary citizens. As the saying goes, “no one wants a cop, until they need one.” Firemen put their butts on the line, to save others, in situations the military would write off as hopeless.
I agree. I believe that being CnC, and not knowing the military is insane. It’s like running a hospital, but not knowing a thing about medicine. Can it be done? Sure. But it’s stupid.
Pushing Booters sucks too. It’s because you’re not doing the job you were trained to do. I’ve always felt the military should make a rating that’s specifically tasked for recruiting and drilling. Make it like being a Master at Arms, where you have to have served in another rate/mos, before being able to enter it (so they know what the real military is like).
I don’t have any problems with the Coast Guard in general, it’s just that the rich kids gunning for the Senate/House would almost assuredly end up in the least dangerous positions possible. Granted this happens in all the branches, but if service became mandatory I’d be willing to bet the Coast Guard would become a haven for people like that.
My sentiments exactly. It’s amazing how much people dislike the police when they are the only thing that keeps any semblance of order on a daily basis. Being in Southern California I’ve got a huge respect for firefighters. I damn sure wouldn’t want to be going INTO a forest that was in the process of burning down.
The worst part about it is that no matter how much you argue, once they’ve selected you for recruiting there are only three ways out. If you don’t have a drivers license then you’re free, if you get accepted to go Spec Ops, or if you die. Recruiting is like the Illuminati of the military, anything they want done, get’s done.
I certainly am not going to argue with you that a lot of politicians managed to weasel out of military service or into safe assignments. I think it’s laughable that that site counts W as having had military service. However, a lot of Congress now is made up of people who came of age in the late '70s and '80s when there wasn’t a lot of combat to go around. I don’t think it’s fair to criticize those people for not having served in combat zones.
This is all true, but his site seems to mostly be focused on the sitting Congress, (or at least the Congress that was sitting when the site was made; it doesn’t seem to have been updated with the results of the '08 election), for which WWII and Korea are becoming increasingly irrelevant, especially compared to the lack of Iraq/Afghanistan info.
(Sidenote: I had no idea Dan Inouye was such a badass.)
Re: the Democrat/Republican flip. Even before the civil rights flip in the '60s, Democrats tended to be economically to the left even before WWII. FDR’s coalition managed to include both urban black laborers in northern cities and Southern segregationists. Some of what Lincoln wrote on labor issues would be heretical from a Republican (or even most Democrats) today.
As opposed to what? It being de facto legal anyway, because nobody bothered to challenge it? Just cause he took his shot and lost doesn’t make him a moron. If nobody challenges something, then it simply continues unchallenged, so what’s the difference?
Because it’s a waste of tax money (the case itself took time and service from more important things), the government rational was obvious (repeated terrorist attempts), just because something isn’t written in black and white to be a law doesn’t mean it has to be (that’s the Common Law principal), and pure common sense was obvious (why should they let someone fly completely anonymous, purely because that person wants to fly anonymous, when everyone else can’t). More over: anonymity is [u]NOT[/u] a constitutional right. A circumstantial right, but not a constitutional one.
It’s like trying to outlaw the color red, because it has a higher chance to entice anger in people, than any other color. Can someone do it? Sure. Mindlessly pointless and utterly gutless in purpose… but sure.
Moronic is what I call that.
On top of that, they made it a law in black and white. Seriously… the exact opposite happened, and in practicality he made it worst. No ID? Not a problem. They can violate your privacy even more with secondary measures: which would be a process that includes a history search, body search, medical record hunt, calling friends and family to vouch goodwill. It’s better to just show them the damn ID. You’re not going to fly anonymous. Period. Even if you own the jet (gotta get it registered and processed) or part of a government agency (they always keep a record - the CIA and black ops included - because even spooks can’t trust each other).
His beef with government regulation of the Internet, shouldn’t have spilled over to something utterly unrelated like airport security. There is no way in hell, anonymity makes flying any better… not by a long shot… except for those who want something to hide or being truly selfish. It wasn’t something for the good of everyone else… it was something for the good of him.
